STALKER or Fallout 3

[el derpenburgo]

Hello everyone. Just a quick question.

Did you find it possible to play one and enjoy the other?

Both present two different versions of an apocalyptic wasteland but I played STALKER first and strangely, I couldn't play more than an hour of Fallout 3 because I preferred its atmosphere a whole lot more. Yes, I actually preferred my post-apocalyptic wastelands more desolate and boring. I'm sure Fallout 3 is indeed a good game, but I kept thinking to myself that STALKER presented a superior game with a similar premise and I couldn't help but feel I was wasting my time with Fallout. It was like CoD vs Battlefield, they both try to do similar things but I couldn't get into CoD like I did BF3. Anyone else get this feeling?

 

[Muspelheim]

Yes, I do (or no, I don't). They're not the same games.

While they do (somewhat) share their setting, they are quite different games once you really get down to it. STALKER is more of a shooter, while Fallout 3 have RPG elements other than weapons and armour stats. They're also rather different in tone, and while they both involve abandoned buildings and mutants, I can't really say that one equals the other.

 

[DazZ.]

Loved them both, they both have an incredibly different tone. At no point does Stalker not take itself seriously and is constantly brutal with it's difficulty and can be genuinely scary, whereas Fallout has a sense of humour, more emphasis on "playing" and is immensely easier, whilst having a lot more focus on the traditional RPG elements.

They're different flavours of post apocalyptic ice cream, I can enjoy them both. Sometimes together in some form of nuclear neapolitan along with Rage.

 

[Bertylicious]

Loved them both, they both have an incredibly different tone. At no point does Stalker not take itself seriously and is constantly brutal with it's difficulty and can be genuinely scary, whereas Fallout has a sense of humour, more emphasis on "playing" and is immensely easier, whilst having a lot more focus on the traditional RPG elements.

They're different flavours of post apocalyptic ice cream, I can enjoy them both. Sometimes together in some form of nuclear neapolitan along with Rage.

Stalker does have some light hearted moments. The Freedom faction all being stoners for example.

Agree though; both are great fun and I enjoyed them each thoroughly. Stalker is better than F3 though.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

It's a tough comparison. Not because they're so different, but because The Zone is unmatched in it's awesomeness.

I know both games are about apocalyptic wastelands that contain radiation and mutants. But the Zone in STALKER, with it's reality/physiscs defying anomalies that warp the landscape and can kill you in a blink, makes Fallout's wastelands look 'standard'.

Admittedly, the two games do have their profound differences. I'd say STALKER goes for a much more oppressive and downtrodden atmosphere, and Fallout is much more quirks and oddities. Both games do give off a good 'Shitty Wasteland' vibe.

Its hard to think of many games that match the high-atmosphere and dynamic feel of STALKER. Personally speaking, there's not too many memorable moments in Fallout 3 that match such moments as, the ascent to the brain scorcher. The red forest at night. And emissions.

Those fucking emissions.

tbh, I dislike Fallout 3 - but I do like NV. But I do think STALKER is generally a better and more appealing game.

 

[Studsmack]

STALKER was a fantastic game, but drudging through The Zone bore me after a while and it got to the point where I just didn't give a poop about finding some stalker for answers.

Fallout, on the other hand, I fell in love with the universe with the original Fallout's 1 and 2. That said, I really got into the quirkiness and dark humor associated with the series, as many have pointed out. The concept that also sold me was the alternative American time period and the aesthetics that came with it. That, and the fact that exploration felt more rewarding in Fallout's sandbox than it did with STALKER's fragmented play space.

 

[One Shot wonder]

I sank over 600 hours into FO3 easily and yet I still prefer S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (and also on a tangent New Vegas). The world just felt more alive, more involved and just plain better. I'll still boot up Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat every now and then but I haven't touched Fallout 3 since ...er come to think of it New Vegas launch day. I dearly love S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and will be keeping it around for a long time yet, whereas Fallout 3 is that friend from highschool. Yeah he was alright, and yeah you might be curious how he's doing every now and then but not too often.

Oh, and Chernobyl manages to have some damn PLANTS and *still* feel post-apocalyptic and hard to survive in, whereas Fallout 3 went with the 'everything greyer than everything else' approach.

 

[BartyMae]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is/was the better series for me. I thought it had a more interesting lore/plot, and I preferred the gameplay. It is, however, a more solitary experience...which is also something I like.

The Fallouts, I am unlikely to ever play again. But I play through Shadow of Chernobyl once, at least, every year.

 

[Dark Prophet]

You can't rally compare those two they have some similarities but yeah one is elephant and other elephant seal (guess the movie).
I played through all three stalker games something like a month ago and they are still as good as ever SoC has the best story and music CS visuals and stmosphere CoP best gameplay and no bugs. Yet I still want to go to capital wasteland and explore it untill I have looted fucking everything. I love both series, NV not so much because it's still a broken piece of shit.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

They are both good for different reasons. Fallout 3 is a fun little game to kill some hours with but STALKER is the challenge to get the blood pumping. I wouldn't really try to compare them in anything but setting and that isn't really an issue i take with games unless i can't find another reason why i disliked it.

 

[Andrew_C]

Sure, they are very different games, they just share a post apocalyptic setting.

I think S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is the better game by far - far better story, atmosphere and environment, but Fallout 3 is enjoyable if you ignore the main quest, Broken Steel and Little Lamplight.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Well, I think I know what you're talking about RE: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - it's still pretty much one of a kind.

However, I also liked the first two incarnations of Fallout, so Fallout 3 was also very much of interest to me. They are both good games, methinks, but very different. If people do not play through an unspoilered S.T.A.L.K.E.R., they're missing out. If you don't finish Fallout 3, I do believe you're missing a proper adventure. If you've lived through S.T.A.L.K.E.R., you should be able to adapt to Fallout 3. Give it a go, I'd say it's well worth it.

 

[TheLegate]

Stalker is what I'd go for, I played fallout 3 before and I never could get immersed in it. Most of the characters in fallout 3 were uninteresting to me (not like Stalker's was any better BTW). Stalker gave me the survival rpg feeling that I was looking for when finding a good apocalypse type game. The action was more fluid and I really liked the content.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Perhaps not super relevant to the discussion at hand but I find that this piece [http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/01/alone-for-all-seasons/] on Tap Repeatedly explains precisely what STALKER does right.

As for the discussion at hand: I've completed Fallout 3. Didn't like it much. Don't really think about it much anymore.

On the other hand I've completed all the STALKER games and I regularly think about them, their design, their atmosphere, their flaws and what's excellent. As games they are much more interesting and can always spawn a good discussion on game theory. Fallout 3 can't. It's just a run of the mill Bethesda theme park.

New Vegas on the other hand is excellent!